Friday, February 6, 2009

Chapter 14
Treasonous Treaties — The Loss of Sovereignty
"All Treaties made . . .
shall be the supreme Law of the Land."
— Article VI, Clause 2

Another one of those provisions in the Constitution for exercising our agency, which can destroy our liberties, is that of treaties. Article VI, Clause 2, tells us, ". . . all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land." This is extremely important to remember because we have entered into a series of treaties, and by so doing, have rescinded our rights to appeal to the Constitution for protection from the encroachments of foreign entities. Treaties, in a very real sense, can place us in the hands of slave masters from foreign lands. Thomas Jefferson had serious apprehensions about treaties and felt that we should not entangle ourselves with them. In 1799 he wrote in a letter to an Elbridge Gerry, and said, "I am not for linking ourselves by new treaties with the quarrels of Europe. . . ." (The Real Thomas Jefferson, p. 644, from Bergh, 10:78.) And in 1804 he wrote the following: "Our system is to have [no treaties] with any nation, as far as can be avoided. . . . It is against our system to embarrass ourselves with treaties or to entangle ourselves at all with the affairs of Europe." (Ibid., p. 645, from Bergh, Jefferson at Monticello, 11:38.)

One of the worst treaties that this nation has entangled itself with is a treaty with the United Nations (U.N.). This is not just this author’s view, but as we proceed, we will find that it is the view of many others.

The United Nations is a group of nations bound together for the cause of peace, so they say — but as we continue our study, we will find that this is not their plan.

All Power to the U.N.
Senator Dan Smoot, had this to say about the United Nations’ philosophy in regards to socialistic-communism:

"Well-informed constitutionalist Americans know that the United Nations Charter is a multi-nation treaty which, if obeyed by all parties to it, would require member nations to cooperate in socializing their national economics and then to merge into a unified world-wide socialist system. Creation of a world socialist system is the objective of communism. Thus, as created, the United Nations and all its specialized agencies are designed to serve the cause of communism. In many specific ways, the United Nations has promoted the interest of the Soviet Union." (PPNS, p. 454, from The Dan Smoot Report, 4-8-63.)

President Benson, a Dan Smoot supporter, also has much to say about the United Nations and its type of government. From a chapter entitled, "The United Nations — Planned Tyranny," in one of his books, he said,

"It has always been a source of amazement to me how so many Americans properly are concerned over the growth of big government and the welfare state here at home, but continue to give their unqualified support to the U.N. which incorporates every doctrine which they abhor. The reason, I suppose, is that too few of us have taken the time or felt the need to find out just what is the concept of government at the U.N.
"On the Surface, the U.N. Charter and the structure of its various departments bears a strong resemblance to those of our own federal government. But the similarity goes no further that outward form. Whereas the United States is founded on the concept of limited government, the U.N. concept is one of unlimited government power with virtually no meaningful restraints to protect individual liberty.
"Instead of insuring that all member states have limited forms of government, the U.N. assumes that most of them have unlimited power over their subjects. The U.N. is not the least bit concerned over the fact that a majority of its members are governments which rule with police-state methods. Instead of assuming that any power not specifically mentioned in the Constitution is reserved to the individual citizens or their smaller governmental units, the U.N. operates under the doctrine that its Charter is sufficiently vague and broad so as to authorize doing absolutely anything." (AEHDT, pp. 203-204.)

Then President Benson goes on to quote their representative, Abraham Feller, who said, "Under international law, the (U.N.) organization must be deemed to have those powers which, though not expressly provided in the Charter, are conferred upon it by necessary implication as being essential to the performance of its duties." (Quoted in AEHDT, pp. 204-205.)

There is ambiguity in the law of the U.N. charter and, it seems, that almost anything goes when it comes to fulfilling their purpose. This is convenient because it leaves procedures open for almost any method they choose.

Not only do they not value exact and written rules, but they do not value God as the Giver of good government. Again, President Benson says:

"There is no mention of God in the United Nation’s charter, the United Nation’s Covenant of Human Rights or any other similar United Nation’s document. ‘Prayer to Christ’ is specifically forbidden at the opening of all United Nations sessions. It was a serious mistake to shut God out of the deliberations of the United Nations. The godless United Nations has failed as it was certain to do.
"I agree with Dean Russell of Rockford College (Illinois) that ‘we American people sponsored and endorsed a completely alien concept of government when we joined the United Nations. . . . It is high time we gave some consideration to the interests of the United States instead of the United Nations. Let us get out before we are dragged under.’" (TRC, p.194-196.)

Treaties and Treason
A Constitutional definition of treason can be found in Article III, Section 3, Clause 1, and Article II, Section 4. It speaks of the removal of the President upon conviction of treason. Treason is defined by the Constitution as follows: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, GIVING THEM AID AND COMFORT." (Article III, Section 3, Clause 1.)

Webster defines treason as, "1. Betrayal of trust or faith; treachery. 2. Violation of the allegiance owed to one’s sovereign or state; betrayal of one’s country." Bouvier says, "TREASON. This word imports a betraying, treachery, or breach of allegiance. . . . It is the only crime defined by the constitution. . . ." (Bouvier’s, p. 3310.)

In a Proclamation issued on April 16, 1917, by President Woodrow Wilson, he said, "The courts of the United States have stated the following acts to be treasonable: . . . the acquisition, use or disposal of any property with knowledge that it is to be, or with intent that it shall be, of assistance to the enemy in their hostilities against the United States; the performance of any act or the publication of statements or information which will give or supply in any way, aid and comfort to the enemies of the United States; the direction, aiding, counseling, or countenancing of any of the foregoing acts; such acts are held to be treasonable whether committed within the United States or elsewhere. . . ." (AEHDT, p. 81; PPNS, p. 283.)

Haven’t we, as a nation, given aid, comfort, direction, counseling, etc., to the Soviet Union — our enemy for over 80 years — in the form of food, moneys, industrial help, and military secrets? We even gave them money which they used to make weapons which they sold to Red China and North Vietnam, which were used to kill our own boys. If that is not treason, what is?

In a statement by the First Presidency in 1939, we read: "Since Communism, established, would destroy our American Constitutional government, to support Communism [Socialism] is treasonable to our free institutions, and no patriotic American citizen may become either a Communist or supporter of Communism."

Now have we, as Americans, our government, and government officials been supporting those forces which plot the overthrow of our nation and our liberties? The answer is an emphatic YES! And those who do not believe this are either ignorant of the facts or ignore them altogether as though there is no danger or treason involved. There have been many indications of treason from our top government officials in the past.

The top leaders in the United Nations are communists. And as we have learned earlier — communism and socialism are the same. Supporting the U.N., in any manner, is in effect supporting communistic socialism. By such treaties, as with that made with the United Nations, the treaty becomes treasonable, although legal.

A Treasonable Stance
Saddam Hussein’s Iraqi forces invaded Kuwait on August 4, 1990. This was after April Glaspie, American ambassador from the State Department, assured Hussein that the United States had no interest in the border disputes and would not get involved. This was a signal for Hussein to make his move. Almost immediately, the President deployed U.S. troops into the Persian Gulf area.

On September 11, 1990, the President addressed a joint session of Congress and the American people, where he gave a five-point objective for our presence there following the invasion by Iraqi forces into Kuwait. Those five points are: 1) to protect Saudi Arabia from attack by Iraq; 2) to restore Kuwait’s former government; 3) to secure the removal of Iraqi troops from Kuwait; 4) to cause Saddam Hussein to stand down as head of the Iraqi government; and, 5) to form a "New One World Order".

During that speech, on September 11th, the President said, among other things, "Out of these troubled times, our fifth objective — a new world order — can emerge . . . we are now in sight of a United Nations that performs as envisioned by its founders." If we understood the founders of the U.N., we would know that they envisioned a one-world socialistic government.

On October 1, 1990, speaking before the United Nations General Assembly, he emphasized that, "The United Nations can help bring about a new day . . . a new world order, and a long era of peace." And, on November 19, 1990, when he and other national leaders were signing ANOTHER TREATY, he said that the pact heralds a "new world order. . . . It is the farthest-reaching arms agreement in history, and it signals the new world order that is emerging."

Dr. W. Cleon Skousen expressed his feelings on this subject in his Prognosis for the Persian Gulf Crisis:

"The press has now revealed that the President knew of the possibility of an attack several weeks before it occurred, but instead of going to Congress he went to the Aspen Institute in Colorado, and was there with Margaret Thatcher when the attack occurred.
"What is the Aspen Institute? This the latest name for the planning center of the nation’s leading members of the Forbe’s 500.
"These are the international bankers, the big industrialists, the heads of the oil corporations, and many of the people who run the nation’s media. Naturally, this is a powerful group and they have never hesitated to intervene in the affairs of the American people when it has been in their interest to do so. In the past this group of powerful vested interests has been known as the Council on Foreign Relations, or CFR, the Tri-lateral Commission, The Council on Pacific Relations, the Bilderbergers, etc. Basically, they have always been more or less the same people. Their latest meeting place for important planning sessions is the Aspen Institute. The most significant goal of the Aspen Institute is to set up a ‘new world order’ to replace the individual sovereignty and national constitutions of the various nations of the world, including our own.
"When the President left the Aspen Institute on August 2, and returned to Washington it was rather amazing to see how vigorously he took action. There was no counselling with Congress, no conferences with majority and minority leaders from Congress, no investigation, nothing. It was almost as though he were following some pre-arranged plan.
"The president knows exactly what this term [New World Order] means, and so does the Aspen Institute. Not too long ago we interviewed the top officials of the Aspen Institute and they made it very clear that the New World Order is the top priority for the future.
"How the New World Order is going to work in the future, was demonstrated on November 29, [1990] when the United Nations Security Council voted to have force used against Iraq if Saddam Hussein did not have his forces out of Kuwait by January 15 [1991]. The Congress will then be asked to pass the same identical resolution which ratifies the action of the UN. At that moment you will have seen for the first time in U.S. history a declaration of war by treaty. It will mean that we will fight a war, not for the American people, but for a United Nations Security Council which we neither elected nor have the power to control." (Prognosis for the Persian Gulf Crisis, 1990, pp. 3-4, 8.)

Another individual who has been evolved in keeping abreast of current events due to his position and experience is Colonel James "Bo" Gritz. He gives us the following insights into the Persian Gulf War:

"[The President] fired the USAF Chief of Staff on 17 September when — against the wishes of his superiors — the four-star general revealed plans for a general war in the area, as U.S. troop strength approached 200,000 and government spokesmen spoke of years of U.S. occupation. I don’t believe this was a simple blunder or that he became a blabbermouth overnight. I think the former USAF Chief of Staff was trying to save America from another no-win war. He was willing to sacrifice his career to tell America the truth. The Pentagon has ordered 20,000 caskets and 50,000 rubber body-bags." (Center For Action News Alert, ‘America In The Middle East,’ January 1991, p. 1.)

The President has known his responsibility to this nation, but his goal was not to uphold the Constitution but to bow to the wishes of another power. In an article entitled American Blood for a "New World Order"? Gary Benoit wrote:

"What further proof is needed of Mr. Bush’s internationalist mindset than the fact that he went to the Security Council of the United Nations — not the U.S. Congress — for the authority to go to war? According to the U.S. Constitution, only the Congress has the authority to declare war. Mr. Bush knows this. While he took an oath to uphold the Constitution, he brazenly thumbed his nose at it by dodging efforts to recall Congress to make the decision." (The John Birch Society Bulletin, January 1991, p. 8.)

Although Congress approved of U.S. forces to go to the Persian Gulf, nevertheless, it was after the fact. It was in October, 1990, that the President addressed the U.N. and it was in November, of the same year, that the U.N. Security Council agreed to send U.N. forces into the war zone. It was not until January, 1991, that Congress consented. Perhaps they had no choice since our boys (and now girls) were already over there. The editors of the Council on Foreign Relation’s Foreign Affairs publication said,

"Never before in American history was there a period quite like it. For 48 days the United States moved inexorably toward war, acting on authority granted by an international organization.
"On November 29, 1990, in an unprecedented step, the United Nations Security Council authorized the use after January 15, 1991, of ‘all necessary means’ to achieve the withdrawal of Iraqi forces from the territory of Kuwait. On January 12 the Congress of the United States authorized President Bush to use American armed forces to implement that resolution. This too was unprecedented." (Quoted in The JBS Bulletin, November 1991, p. 4.)

Here we have it from the mouth of the organization that has pushed the support of the United Nations from the very beginning — the Council on Foreign Relations — the real power (the shadow government) behind our U.S. foreign policy. (For further information about the Council on Foreign Relations and the American decline, read: The Shadows of Power, by James Perloff.)

War Unjustified
In the April General Conference of the Church, 1942, President David O. McKay spoke of the reasons for wars and some of the unjustifiable excuses for them. When listing some of those unjustifiable reasons, he said, "Nor is war justified in an attempt to enforce a new order of government, . . . however better the government or eternally true the principles." (CR, April 1942, pp. 72-73; PPNS, p. 476.)

Unjustifiable, or not, this war was for the establishment of a "new order of government" — it’s called, "The New World Order." And justifiable or not, the Bilderbergers — a group of internationalists striving for a one-world government, which was mentioned in a previous chapter — had their hands in the Persian Gulf War.

It is they who basically pull the strings that move the U.N. From The Spotlight, a conservative newspaper, we get the following information about the secret meeting the Bilderbergers held in Germany, during June of 1991. This newspaper had a reliable source on the "inside," which fed them knowledge about much of the proceedings. Here is some of that information:

"This grim news came from a ‘main pipeline’ — a high-ranking Bilderberg staffer who secretly cooperated with our investigation — behind the guarded walls of the Badischer Hof, who was operating from inside with colleagues serving as ‘connecting pipelines.’
"What the Bilderberg group intends is a global army at the disposal of the United Nations, which is to become the world government to which all nations will be subservient by the year 2000.
"Crucial to making the UN a strong world government, by ‘osmosis,’ in the words of some Bilderberg participants, is to bestow it with ‘enforcement power.’
"A UN army must be able to act immediately, anywhere in the world, without delays. . . .’ said Henry Kissinger during one of the forums.
"Kissinger and others expressed pleasure over the conduct of the Persian Gulf war, stressing that it had been sanctioned by the UN, at the request of President George Bush, himself a Trilateral luminary, before the issue was laid before the U.S. Congress.
"The fact that the President would make his case to the UN first, when the Constitution empowers only Congress to declare war, was viewed as a significant step in ‘leading Americans away from nationalism.’
"‘The Persian Gulf venture has advanced the cause by years,’ one speaker said. Americans, so reluctant to commit their flag to foreign battlefields after 58,000 perished in the ill-fated Vietnam War, have had their attitude ‘completely turned around,’ he said.
"Such an adventure was essential to getting Americans into ‘the right frame of mind for the years ahead,’ said another.
"In their circumspect way, the Bilderberg participants claimed credit for influencing the President to go to war, some mentioning, with knowing smiles, that the American ambassador, April Glaspie, had assured Saddam Hussein directly that the United States would take no action if he invaded Kuwait.
"And, they promised each other, there will be ‘more incidents’ for the UN to deal with in the years ahead. The Bilderberg group and its little brother, the Trilateral Commission, can set up ‘incidents’ on schedule, they said, but in less direct words. The words ‘within five years’ were heard repeatedly." (The Spotlight, June 24, 1991, pp. 1, 3.)

For the past eighty years, various Presidents have been involved in questionable and treacherous activities. But some have retained a spark of Americanism. One such President was John F. Kennedy. Even though caught up in the power of office, and the establishment, he retained a love for this country. As we read his words, we may come to realize why certain people would want to have it stricken from public view. At one time, President Kennedy had the nerve to proclaim:
"The high office of the President has been used to foment a plot to destroy America’s freedom and before I leave office, I must inform the citizens of their plight." (A speech delivered at Columbia University in October of 1963.)

It is not uncommon to hear citizens express the idea that we must support the President, and to do otherwise is not patriotic and is un-American. President Theodore Roosevelt thought otherwise and he is credited with expressing these unusual thoughts on this subject of treason and the Presidency:

"Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the President or any other public official save exactly to the degree in which he himself stands by the country.
"It is patriotic to support him insofar as he efficiently serves the country. It is unpatriotic not to oppose him to the exact extent that by inefficiency or otherwise he fails in his duty to stand by the country.
"In either event, it is unpatriotic not to tell the truth — whether about the President or anyone else — save in the rare cases where this would make known to the enemy information of military value which would otherwise be unknown to him.
"Every man who parrots the cry of ‘stand by the President’ without adding the proviso ‘so far as he serves the Republic’ takes an attitude as essentially unmanly as that of any Stuart royalist who championed the doctrine that the King could do no wrong. No self-respecting and intelligent free man could take such an attitude." (President Theodore Roosevelt; Benson, GFC, p. 320; James J. Drummey, The Establishments Man, p. 116; The John Birch Society Bulletin. No. 380, January 1991, p. 1.)

Alliances Destroy Sovereignty
The United Nations Treaty which was adopted without much analysis is now leading the United States and the rest of the world into a "New World Order" of government, a government in which the voice of the people is not heard. The President knows the ramifications of such treaties. The Constitution states that, "all Treaties made, or which shall be made . . . shall be the supreme Law of the Land." (Article VI, Clause 2.)

By such treaties we have authorized other nations and people to control our destinies instead of us controlling our own. Is there any wonder that the third President of the United States, Thomas Jefferson, said, "Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations — entangling alliances with none." (The Five Thousand Year Leap, p. 267, from Bergh, Writings of Thomas Jefferson, 3:321.)

President J. Reuben Clark, Jr., of the First Presidency and former Under Secretary of State and former ambassador to Mexico, was one who understood the Constitution and the serious problems of treaties. He said,

‘In furtherance of the general plan in contemplation of a world-state, we have made treaties of alliance containing obligations that infringed upon our sovereignty. (Prophets, Principles, and National Survival, p. 450.)
"It has already been said that to an outsider this new theory of treaty-law is a device to secure our participation in a world-state. . . . This treaty-law doctrine is power-thirst gone mad." (Ibid., pp. 450-453, from President J. Reuben Clark, 5/29/57.)

By involvement in treaties, the safety and protection guaranteed by our Constitution is in danger. Such treaties surrender our sovereignty over to a foreign entity. Ezra Taft Benson said, "Our Constitutional form of government and the citizens who revere what our nation represents stand directly in the path of these globalists’ plans. Therefore, from the earliest stages, subversion of the United States has been a primary focus of their plans." (CR, September 1961, p. 73.)

President J. Reuben Clark, in 1957, quoted a high government official as saying that treaties can take power away from the Constitution:

". . . congressional laws are invalid if they do not conform to the Constitution, whereas treaty laws can override the Constitution. Treaties, for example, can take powers away from the Congress and give them to the President; they can take powers from the States and give them to the Federal Government or to some international body and they can cut across the rights given the people by the Constitutional Bill of Rights." (PPNS, p. 451, from Frank E. Holman, Story of the "Bricker" Amendment, pp. 14-15.)

The Bill of Rights, those "unalienable" rights granted by God, are also in jeopardy by treaties. Our Constitution can be nullified by treaties, as Thomas Jefferson was aware. In 1803 he wrote: "Our peculiar security is in the possession of a written Constitution. Let us not make it a blank paper by construction. I say the same as to the opinion of those who consider the grant of the treaty-making power as boundless. If it is, then we have no Constitution." (The Real Thomas Jefferson, p. 644, from Bergh, 10:419.)

A Defenseless Nation
Not only can we not end up with a written Constitution, but we could be in danger of being defenseless. The Preamble to the Constitution talks about providing for the "common defence." In Article I, Section 8, Clauses 1 and 16, we read: "The Congress shall have Power To . . . provide for the common Defence . . . To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia. . . ."

These clauses have been nullified by the "Arms Control and Disarmament Act," of 1961. The following is taken from Public Law 87-297 — Sept. 26, 1961. It is a law of which very few Americans know the ramifications. It is stated here, in part:
SECTION 1. "Arms Control and Disarmament Act."
SEC. 2. ". . . It is the purpose of this Act to provide impetus toward this goal . . . toward ultimate world disarmament." (p. 631)
SEC. 3. The terms "arms control" and "disarmament" means the identification, verification, inspection, limitation, control, reduction, or elimination, of armed forces and armaments of all kinds under international agreement including the necessary steps taken under such an agreement to establish an effective system of international control. . . . (pp. 631-32)
SEC. 31. ". . . the Director is authorized and directed, under the direction of the President . . . to make arrangements . . . for the conduct of research, development, and other studies in the field of arms control and disarmament by private or public institutions or persons:
(a) the detection, identification, inspection, monitoring, limitation, reduction, control, and elimination of armed forces and armaments. . . .
(d) the control, reduction, and elimination of armed forces and armaments in space, areas on and beneath the earth’s surface, and in the underwater regions. . . .
(h) the economic and political consequences of arms control and disarmament, including the problems of readjustment arising in industry and the reallocation of national resources. . . .
(k) methods for the maintenance of peace and security during different states of arms control and disarmament. . . . (pp. 633-34)
SEC. 41. In the performance of his function, the Director is authorized to —
(a) utilize or employ the services, personnel, equipment, or facilities of any other Government agency, with the consent of the agency concerned, to perform such functions on behalf of the Agency as may appear desirable.
(c) enter into agreements with other Government agencies, including the military departments through the Secretary of Defense, under which officers or employees of such agencies may be detailed to the Agency for the performance of service pursuant to this Act.
(e) employ individuals of outstanding ability without compensation. . . . (pp. 635-36)
SEC. 45. (a) The director shall establish such security and loyalty requirements, restrictions, and safeguards as he deems necessary in the interest of the national security and to carry out the provisions of this Act.
SEC. 47. (b) The President, by Executive order, may transfer to the Director any activities or facilities of any Government agency which relate primarily to arms control and disarmament.
Then, in 1962, President Kennedy, signed and delivered this "Blueprint for the Peace Race." The ironic thing, though, it is more a blueprint for sure invasion of the American people. This "Blueprint" is also given in part:
April 18, 1962
". . . not to an arms race but to a peace
race - to advance together step by step,
stage by stage, until general and complete
disarmament has been achieved."
September 25, 1961
"As national armaments were reduced, the United Nations would be progressively strengthened."
It calls for a three-stage program of controls and disarmament. Unlimited power is to be given to the United Nations.
1. Elimination of production of armaments.
2. Have at national disposal only those agreed forces required to maintain internal order.
3. Reduction of military bases to only those to be utilized by the United Nations.
4. Establishment of a United Nations Peace Observation Corps which would be equipped with agreed types of armaments and would be supplied agreed manpower by nation, would be progressively strengthened until it would be fully capable of insuring international security in a disarmed world.

From the foregoing we find that these disarmament measures include "armaments of all kinds," including personal weapons. Power is given the director over industry, economics, national resources, government agencies, and the individual. Authority can be used to enforce the law on the individual "without compensation." Could this be a form of "slave labor?" The director has vast powers "in the interest of national security." Here is a question to consider: "If we are disarmed, how secure will we be?" Also, we have the possibility of a Presidential Executive Order where the President could declare martial law, and hold in suspension the Constitution.

Thus, we see the goal of the United Nations and their intended program to bring the world under its control. They will take charge, as they did in the Persian Gulf War, and let the world know they will not tolerate anyone rising to power that might be a threat to U.N. domination.

At the U.S. Senate Hearings on the revision of the U.N. Charter, Samuel R. Levering, of Virginia, had the following observations to make about the powers of the U.N. and the subsequent loss of sovereignty:

"Clearly, an effective international civilian inspection and police force would require a strengthened and revised United Nations to provide democratic and effective controls. The World Court would have to be given jurisdiction over individuals accused of violating the law. . . . The Security Council would have to become . . . responsible for the operation of the inspection and police force.
"There is no chance to depend on the good faith of the parties involved alone. We have tried that and it has not worked. The only thing that has a chance of stopping the arms race is inspection, but inspection does require force. . . .
"So, we believe that sort of power needs to be given the United Nations, an international civilian inspection and police force, acting directly on individuals who are found breaking the law in the field of prohibited armaments, or preparations therefore." (Samuel R. Levering, of Virginia, speaking in behalf of The Friends Committee on National Legislation, U.S. Senate Hearings, February 20, 1950, pp. 645, 649.)

However, President Benson said, "I Consider it a direct violation of the obligation imposed upon it by the Constitution for the federal government to dismantle or weaken our military establishment below that point required for the protection of the States against invasion, or to surrender or commit our men, arms, or money to the control of foreign or world organizations or governments. . . . I believe that no treaty or agreement with other countries should deprive our citizens of rights guaranteed them by the Constitution." (AEHDT, p. 146.)

Asking ourselves a question, at this point, might be appropriate: "How can peace and freedom be assured when total military power is in the hands of only one single organization, when all nations are disarmed, and subject to the whims, prejudices, biases, dictates, and controls of that organization?" Such a system of government is slavery and the loss of sovereignty for all the nations involved. This is the goal of the United Nations and their "New World Order." By the treaty with the U.N., with NATO, for "Disarmament," etc., our Constitutional provision for "common defence," has been annulled. And more recently, our President, the man who took an oath to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution," (Article II, Section 1, Clause 8.) has gone on the public new media and presented a plan for more military cut backs. And the February, 1992, The McAlvany intelligence Advisor, reports:

"On February 1, 1992, the chiefs of state of 20 countries, headed by George Bush, met at the United Nations and declared that ‘the world community can no longer allow advancement of fundamental rights to stop at national borders...that the UN abandon its tradition of noninterference in internal affairs of member countries. . .
"George Bush, addressing the world leaders at the UN, said, ‘It is the sacred principles enshrined in the UN Charter to which we will henceforth pledge our allegiance.’ Those ‘sacred principles’ Bush refers to were crafted by Soviet spy Alger Hiss and given force by the signatures of Joseph Stalin...
"At the same UN meeting, plans were discussed to transfer national armies to the control of the United Nations. As the Los Angeles Times (2/1/92) said, ‘Creating a standing army under the control of the United Nations Security Council would give the world organization a military punch it has never had before and could convert it into a full-time international police force. . .
"If this UN standing army is created, blue helmeted UN troops from Russia, China, Europe, Africa, etc. could be on US soil within 3 to 5 years. Harvard professor Joseph S. Nye (a former State Department official and a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and Trilateral Commission) in a New York Times editorial (1/27/92), was blunt in coming out for a ‘fire brigade, or UN rapid deployment force - led by the US - for the coming New World Order." (The McAlvany Intelligence Advisor, March 1992, pp. 5-6.)

In Article II, Section 2, Clause 1, we read: "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States. . . ."

Let us ask ourselves another question: "How can the President of the United States be the commander in chief of our military when all the power is turned over to the United Nations and a "New World Order." He has subordinated his command to the will of the U.N. and nullified his powers provided by the Constitution.

Let us continue with another statement of President Benson. In his true and consistent form, he has these strong feelings to share on this subject of foreign policy of this nation:

"There is one and only one legitimate goal of United States foreign policy. It is a narrow goal, a nationalistic goal: The preservation of our national independence. Nothing in the Constitution grants that the president shall have the privilege of offering himself as a world leader. He is our executive; he is on our payroll; he is supposed to put our best interests in front of those of other nations. Nothing in the Constitution nor in logic grants to the president of the United States or to Congress the power to influence the political life of other countries, to ‘uplift’ their cultures, to bolster their economies, to feed their people, or even to defend them against their enemies. (TETB, 614.)
"Those who subscribe to this philosophy [communism] stop at nothing to achieve their ends. They do not hesitate to destroy — if they are strong enough — whatever stands in their way. Our own generation has witnessed the Russian communists liquidate millions of their fellow countrymen. Even more recently we have seen the Chinese communists wipe out millions of their fellow countrymen — no one knows the exact number.
"To the true communist [socialist], nothing is evil if it is expedient. Being without conscience or honor, he feels completely justified in using whatever means are necessary to achieve his goal: force, trickery, lies, broken promises, mayhem, and individual and mass murder. (CR, October 1960, p. 101.)
"I consider ourselves at war with international Communism which is committed to the destruction of our government, our right of property, and our freedom; that it is treason as defined by the Constitution to give aid and comfort to this implacable enemy. (The Proper Role of Government, p. 22.; AEHDT, p. 144. )
"I have in my possession a copy of an unpublished manuscript on the United Nations Charter prepared in 1945 and given to me by that eminent international lawyer and former Under Secretary of State, J. Reuben Clark, Jr.
"President Clark’s declarations on this, as on other subjects, emphasize more and more with the passing of time his vision and statesmanship. Commenting on the United Nations Charter and the ‘travesty on exhaustive consideration’ as the charter was hastily approved by the Congress, under urging from the State Department, he continues with a devastating analysis and a sober warning to the American people that there will be a day of reckoning. I believe that day is near at hand. The hopes and the aspirations of the people have been betrayed . . . let us have no further blind devotion to the communist-dominated United Nations. (TL, pp. 78-79.)
"We should get out of the U.N. and get the U.N. out of the United States." (AEHDT, p. 208.)

Senator Dan Smoot, from whom we heard earlier, said that we should withdraw from the U.N. and that perversive form of control over the nation. From "The Dan Smoot Report," of January 29, 1962, we read:

"United States membership in the United Nations has caused a perversion of our fundamental concepts of government. . . .
"We cannot restore Americanism; we cannot have an American policy, either foreign or domestic; we cannot reestablish America as a free and independent constitutional republic — until we withdraw from the United Nations." (Quoted in TRC, pp. 196-197.)

Human Nature Has Not Changed
Evil and ruthless people have wanted to control the world before. What makes us think that human nature has changed since ancient times? It has not! In fact, Satan has more power than ever before. In a Priesthood Leadership Meeting in 1986, President Benson had this to say about the subject:

"We live in a day of great challenge. We live in that time of which the Lord spoke when he said, ‘Peace shall be taken from the earth, and the devil shall have power over his own dominion.’ (D&C 1:35.) We live in that day which John the Revelator foresaw when ‘the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed. . . . (Rev. 12:17.) The dragon is Satan; the woman represents the Church of Jesus Christ." (Priesthood Leadership Meeting, 4 April 1986; The Ensign, May 1986.)

President Benson gave Doctrine and Covenants 1:35 as a reference. It says that "the day speedily cometh; the hour is not yet, but is nigh at hand, when peace shall be taken from the earth. . . ." It said the day is coming but is not yet. President Benson said that, "We live in that time." From this it sounds like we are living in a time that was prophesied of by the Lord — a very evil time. Why, then, are we so naive to believe that these world leaders are only out for world peace and brotherhood. They are not! They are out to destroy our liberties protected by the Constitution.

Treaties can be an illusion, and designing people will use them to steal the property and freedom of the law-biding. Employing deceptive means and promises — much like the spider to the fly — we have been lured into the web for destruction. The chapter in this book titled, "Bewitched By the Beast," will give the reader an idea of how we have neutralized our strength while the Soviet Union has continued to increase theirs.

Our first President, George Washington, warned us about treaties and alliances. It is too bad that we have not followed the advice of our Founding Fathers, such as Thomas Jefferson and George Washington. In closing, let us consider a few words from Washington’s Farewell Address:

"The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is, in extending our commercial relations to have with them as little political connection as possible.
"It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world. . . .
"Taking care always to keep ourselves by suitable establishments on a respectable defensive posture, we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies.
"There can be no greater error than to expect or calculate upon real favors from nation to nation. It is an illusion which experience must cure, which a just pride ought to discard."

Now we have learned that treaties can be treasonous. We, of this nation, have exercised our God-given agency and partook of the fruit that is bringing destruction. We not only have evil and designing people in the world but also in this country — those with whom we have put our trust. The threads of freedom are being severed, and we have signed our agreement to it.

No comments: